Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dodia albertae Dyar Figs. 1, 4, 6, 8 Dodia albertae Dyar, 1901: 85. Hypocrita atra A. Bang-Haas, 1912: 109. Hyperborea kozhantshikovi Sheljuzhko, 1918: 104. Dodia albertae eudiopta Tshistjakov, 1988: 638, fig. 5; subspecies. Type material. Dodia albertae – Type locality: “Calgary, Alberta, [Canada], head of Pine Creek.” Male lectotype designated by Tshistjakov and Lafontaine (1984), USNM type No. 5747 [USNM, photograph examined]. Hipocrita atra – Type locality: “Arasagun-gol (Sajan)” according to original description, label on lectotype reads “Arasagun-go / Sajan” [Sayan Mountain range, Mongolia]. Male lectotype designated by Tshistjakov and Lafontaine (1984) [ZMHB, photograph examined]. Note – Hipocrita is an incorrect subsequent spelling of Hypocrita Hübner, [1807]. Hyperborea kozhantshikovi – Type locality: “in montes Dzhugdzhuz [Dzhugdzhur], ad flum. Dzhelinda” [Dzhugdzhur Mountains, Dzhelinda River, eastern Siberia; near the head of the Aldan River according to Tschistjakov (1988)]. Described from 1 male and 1 female syntype; male lectotype (and four paralectotypes) designated by Tshistjakov and Lafontaine (1984) [ZIN, genitalia slide no. 15,191; not examined]. Since only one male was included in the original type material, it is not clear which if any of the lectotype designations are valid. We follow Tschistjakov’s (1988) synonymy; he examined a genitalic preparation of the lectotype in his review of Palaearctic specimens of D. albertae, and treated kozhantshikovi as a synonym of D. albertae albertae. Dodia albertae eudiopta Tshistjakov, 1988 – Type locality: [Olenek River between lower Tomba and Alakit River, Russia]. Holotype male [ZIN; not examined]. The diagnosis and genitalic illustration of this taxon in the original description clearly show that it is more closely allied to D. albertae than to the new species described below. Diagnosis. See species key, and diagnosis of D. tarandus. Distribution and biology. Dodia albertae is widely distributed across the northern hemisphere in wet subarctic and subalpine tundra and boreal peat bog habitats (Fig. 9). In Eurasia it occurs from the Sayan Mountains eastward to eastern Siberia. In North America, it is distributed from the Yukon eastward to Labrador (Fig. 8).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.101 | 0.031 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".